Linaro-mm-sig

linaro-mm-sig@lists.linaro.org

2253 discussions

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: Do not build debugfs related code when !CONFIG_DEBUG_FS

by Maíra Canal

Hi Tvrtko, On 4/1/24 10:21, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote: > > On 01/04/2024 13:45, Christian König wrote: >> Am 01.04.24 um 14:39 schrieb Tvrtko Ursulin: >>> >>> On 29/03/2024 00:00, T.J. Mercier wrote: >>>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 7:53 AM Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin(a)igalia.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin(a)ursulin.net> >>>>> >>>>> There is no point in compiling in the list and mutex operations >>>>> which are >>>>> only used from the dma-buf debugfs code, if debugfs is not compiled >>>>> in. >>>>> >>>>> Put the code in questions behind some kconfig guards and so save >>>>> some text >>>>> and maybe even a pointer per object at runtime when not enabled. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tursulin(a)ursulin.net> >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: T.J. Mercier <tjmercier(a)google.com> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> How would patches to dma-buf be typically landed? Via what tree I >>> mean? drm-misc-next? >> >> That should go through drm-misc-next. >> >> And feel free to add Reviewed-by: Christian König >> <christian.koenig(a)amd.com> as well. > > Thanks! > > Maarten if I got it right you are handling the next drm-misc-next pull - > could you merge this one please? Applied to drm-misc/drm-misc-next! Best Regards, - Maíra > > Regards, > > Tvrtko

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH] doc: dma-buf: fix grammar typo

by Christian König

Am 14.04.24 um 15:07 schrieb Baruch Siach: > Signed-off-by: Baruch Siach <baruch(a)tkos.co.il> > --- > Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst > index 0c153d79ccc4..29abf1eebf9f 100644 > --- a/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst > +++ b/Documentation/driver-api/dma-buf.rst > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ consider though: > the usual size discover pattern size = SEEK_END(0); SEEK_SET(0). Every other > llseek operation will report -EINVAL. > > - If llseek on dma-buf FDs isn't support the kernel will report -ESPIPE for all > + If llseek on dma-buf FDs isn't supported the kernel will report -ESPIPE for all Looks valid of hand, but checkpatch.pl complains about 2 errors (missing commit message for example) and a warning. Please fix and resend. Thanks, Christian. > cases. Userspace can use this to detect support for discovering the dma-buf > size using llseek. >

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH net-next v9 0/3] Add minimal XDP support to TI AM65 CPSW Ethernet driver

by patchwork-bot+netdevbpf＠kernel.org

Hello: This series was applied to netdev/net-next.git (main) by David S. Miller <davem(a)davemloft.net>: On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 17:38:31 +0200 you wrote: > This patch adds XDP support to TI AM65 CPSW Ethernet driver. > > The following features are implemented: NETDEV_XDP_ACT_BASIC, > NETDEV_XDP_ACT_REDIRECT, and NETDEV_XDP_ACT_NDO_XMIT. > > Zero-copy and non-linear XDP buffer supports are NOT implemented. > > [...] Here is the summary with links: - [net-next,v9,1/3] net: ethernet: ti: Add accessors for struct k3_cppi_desc_pool members https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/cd8ff81f747f - [net-next,v9,2/3] net: ethernet: ti: Add desc_infos member to struct k3_cppi_desc_pool https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/84d767a3c0b5 - [net-next,v9,3/3] net: ethernet: ti: am65-cpsw: Add minimal XDP support https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/8acacc40f733 You are awesome, thank you! -- Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH] dmabuf: fix dmabuf file poll uaf issue

by Christian König

Am 15.04.24 um 12:35 schrieb zhiguojiang: > 在 2024/4/12 14:39, Christian König 写道: >> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from >> christian.koenig(a)amd.com. Learn why this is important at >> https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >> >> Am 12.04.24 um 08:19 schrieb zhiguojiang: >>> [SNIP] >>> -> Here task 2220 do epoll again where internally it will get/put then >>> start to free twice and lead to final crash. >>> >>> Here is the basic flow: >>> >>> 1. Thread A install the dma_buf_fd via dma_buf_export, the fd refcount >>> is 1 >>> >>> 2. Thread A add the fd to epoll list via epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_ADD) >>> >>> 3. After use the dma buf, Thread A close the fd, then here fd refcount >>> is 0, >>> and it will run __fput finally to release the file >> >> Stop, that isn't correct. >> >> The fs layer which calls dma_buf_poll() should make sure that the file >> can't go away until the function returns. >> >> Then inside dma_buf_poll() we add another reference to the file while >> installing the callback: >> >> /* Paired with fput in dma_buf_poll_cb */ >> get_file(dmabuf->file); > Hi, > > The problem may just occurred here. > > Is it possible file reference count already decreased to 0 and fput > already being in progressing just before calling > get_file(dmabuf->file) in dma_buf_poll()? No, exactly that isn't possible. If a function gets a dma_buf pointer or even more general any reference counted pointer which has already decreased to 0 then that is a major bug in the caller of that function. BTW: It's completely illegal to work around such issues by using file_count() or RCU functions. So when you suggest stuff like that it will immediately face rejection. Regards, Christian. > >> >> This reference is only dropped after the callback is completed in >> dma_buf_poll_cb(): >> >> /* Paired with get_file in dma_buf_poll */ >> fput(dmabuf->file); >> >> So your explanation for the issue just seems to be incorrect. >> >>> >>> 4. Here Thread A not do epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL) manunally, so it >>> still resides in one epoll_list. >>> Although __fput will call eventpoll_release to remove the file from >>> binded epoll list, >>> but it has small time window where Thread B jumps in. >> >> Well if that is really the case then that would then be a bug in >> epoll_ctl(). >> >>> >>> 5. During the small window, Thread B do the poll action for >>> dma_buf_fd, where it will fget/fput for the file, >>> this means the fd refcount will be 0 -> 1 -> 0, and it will call >>> __fput again. >>> This will lead to __fput twice for the same file. >>> >>> 6. So the potenial fix is use get_file_rcu which to check if file >>> refcount already zero which means under free. >>> If so, we just return and no need to do the dma_buf_poll. >> >> Well to say it bluntly as far as I can see this suggestion is completely >> nonsense. >> >> When the reference to the file goes away while dma_buf_poll() is >> executed then that's a massive bug in the caller of that function. >> >> Regards, >> Christian. >> >>> >>> Here is the race condition: >>> >>> Thread A Thread B >>> dma_buf_export >>> fd_refcount is 1 >>> epoll_ctl(EPOLL_ADD) >>> add dma_buf_fd to epoll list >>> close(dma_buf_fd) >>> fd_refcount is 0 >>> __fput >>> dma_buf_poll >>> fget >>> fput >>> fd_refcount is zero again >>> >>> Thanks >>> >> >

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drm/mediatek: Add secure buffer control flow to mtk_drm_gem

by Maxime Ripard

On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 06:26:54PM +0800, Shawn Sung wrote: > From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <jason-jh.lin(a)mediatek.com> > > Add secure buffer control flow to mtk_drm_gem. > > When user space takes DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE_ENCRYPTED flag and size > to create a mtk_drm_gem object, mtk_drm_gem will find a matched size > dma buffer from secure dma-heap and bind it to mtk_drm_gem object. > > Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin(a)mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Hsiao Chien Sung <shawn.sung(a)mediatek.com> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_gem.c | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_gem.h | 4 ++ > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_gem.c > index e59e0727717b7..ec34d02c14377 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_gem.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/mediatek/mtk_gem.c > @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ > */ > > #include <linux/dma-buf.h> > +#include <linux/dma-heap.h> > +#include <uapi/linux/dma-heap.h> > #include <drm/mediatek_drm.h> > > #include <drm/drm.h> > @@ -102,6 +104,81 @@ struct mtk_gem_obj *mtk_gem_create(struct drm_device *dev, > return ERR_PTR(ret); > } > > +struct mtk_gem_obj *mtk_gem_create_from_heap(struct drm_device *dev, > + const char *heap, size_t size) > +{ > + struct mtk_drm_private *priv = dev->dev_private; > + struct mtk_gem_obj *mtk_gem; > + struct drm_gem_object *obj; > + struct dma_heap *dma_heap; > + struct dma_buf *dma_buf; > + struct dma_buf_attachment *attach; > + struct sg_table *sgt; > + struct iosys_map map = {}; > + int ret; > + > + mtk_gem = mtk_gem_init(dev, size); > + if (IS_ERR(mtk_gem)) > + return ERR_CAST(mtk_gem); > + > + obj = &mtk_gem->base; > + > + dma_heap = dma_heap_find(heap); > + if (!dma_heap) { > + DRM_ERROR("heap find fail\n"); > + goto err_gem_free; > + } > + dma_buf = dma_heap_buffer_alloc(dma_heap, size, > + O_RDWR | O_CLOEXEC, DMA_HEAP_VALID_HEAP_FLAGS); > + if (IS_ERR(dma_buf)) { > + DRM_ERROR("buffer alloc fail\n"); > + dma_heap_put(dma_heap); > + goto err_gem_free; > + } > + dma_heap_put(dma_heap); > + > + attach = dma_buf_attach(dma_buf, priv->dma_dev); > + if (IS_ERR(attach)) { > + DRM_ERROR("attach fail, return\n"); > + dma_buf_put(dma_buf); > + goto err_gem_free; > + } > + > + sgt = dma_buf_map_attachment(attach, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > + if (IS_ERR(sgt)) { > + DRM_ERROR("map failed, detach and return\n"); > + dma_buf_detach(dma_buf, attach); > + dma_buf_put(dma_buf); > + goto err_gem_free; > + } > + obj->import_attach = attach; > + mtk_gem->dma_addr = sg_dma_address(sgt->sgl); > + mtk_gem->sg = sgt; > + mtk_gem->size = dma_buf->size; > + > + if (!strcmp(heap, "mtk_svp") || !strcmp(heap, "mtk_svp_cma")) { > + /* secure buffer can not be mapped */ > + mtk_gem->secure = true; > + } else { > + ret = dma_buf_vmap(dma_buf, &map); > + mtk_gem->kvaddr = map.vaddr; > + if (ret) { > + DRM_ERROR("map failed, ret=%d\n", ret); > + dma_buf_unmap_attachment(attach, sgt, DMA_BIDIRECTIONAL); > + dma_buf_detach(dma_buf, attach); > + dma_buf_put(dma_buf); > + mtk_gem->kvaddr = NULL; > + } > + } > + > + return mtk_gem; > + > +err_gem_free: > + drm_gem_object_release(obj); > + kfree(mtk_gem); > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM); > +} > + > void mtk_gem_free_object(struct drm_gem_object *obj) > { > struct mtk_gem_obj *mtk_gem = to_mtk_gem_obj(obj); > @@ -229,7 +306,9 @@ struct drm_gem_object *mtk_gem_prime_import_sg_table(struct drm_device *dev, > if (IS_ERR(mtk_gem)) > return ERR_CAST(mtk_gem); > > + mtk_gem->secure = !sg_page(sg->sgl); > mtk_gem->dma_addr = sg_dma_address(sg->sgl); > + mtk_gem->size = attach->dmabuf->size; > mtk_gem->sg = sg; > > return &mtk_gem->base; > @@ -304,7 +383,11 @@ int mtk_gem_create_ioctl(struct drm_device *dev, void *data, > struct drm_mtk_gem_create *args = data; > int ret; > > - mtk_gem = mtk_gem_create(dev, args->size, false); > + if (args->flags & DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE_ENCRYPTED) > + mtk_gem = mtk_gem_create_from_heap(dev, "mtk_svp_cma", args->size); That heap doesn't exist upstream either. Also, I'm wondering if it's the right solution there. From what I can tell, you want to allow to create encrypted buffers from the TEE. Why do we need this as a DRM ioctl at all? A heap seems like the perfect solution to do so, and then you just have to import it into DRM. I'm also not entirely sure that not having a SG list is enough to consider the buffer secure. Wouldn't a buffer allocated without a kernel mapping also be in that situation? Maxime

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH v5 1/9] drm/mediatek/uapi: Add DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE_ENCRYPTED flag

by Maxime Ripard

Hi, On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 06:26:53PM +0800, Shawn Sung wrote: > From: "Jason-JH.Lin" <jason-jh.lin(a)mediatek.com> > > Add DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE_ENCRYPTED flag to allow user to allocate > a secure buffer to support secure video path feature. > > Signed-off-by: Jason-JH.Lin <jason-jh.lin(a)mediatek.com> > Signed-off-by: Hsiao Chien Sung <shawn.sung(a)mediatek.com> > --- > include/uapi/drm/mediatek_drm.h | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/drm/mediatek_drm.h b/include/uapi/drm/mediatek_drm.h > index b0dea00bacbc4..e9125de3a24ad 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/drm/mediatek_drm.h > +++ b/include/uapi/drm/mediatek_drm.h > @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ struct drm_mtk_gem_map_off { > > #define DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE 0x00 > #define DRM_MTK_GEM_MAP_OFFSET 0x01 > +#define DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE_ENCRYPTED 0x02 > > #define DRM_IOCTL_MTK_GEM_CREATE DRM_IOWR(DRM_COMMAND_BASE + \ > DRM_MTK_GEM_CREATE, struct drm_mtk_gem_create) That flag doesn't exist in drm-misc-next, which tree is this based on? Maxime

2 weeks, 2 days

Re: [PATCH v3 01/18] ASoC: dt-bindings: mediatek,mt8365-afe: Add audio afe document

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

On 10/04/2024 11:29, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > > > On 09/04/2024 17:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> + soc { >>> + #address-cells = <2>; >>> + #size-cells = <2>; >>> + >>> + afe@11220000 { >> Did you implement the comment or decided to keep afe? >> > > Though it was clear according to [1]: > " > Audio Front End, this is the same name used for other MTK SoC, to be > consistent. > > Cook a new patch serie to change "afe" by "audio-controller" for all MTK > SoC would be great. > " > > I want to keep it and fix it later with ALL other MTK SoC. > You didn't answer after that, I though it was ok for you... Then no, I don't agree. If you add code, which you already plan to fix, it means the code is not correct somehow. Then just add correct code in the beginning. Best regards, Krzysztof

2 weeks, 4 days

Re: [PATCH] dmabuf: fix dmabuf file poll uaf issue

by Christian König

Am 12.04.24 um 08:19 schrieb zhiguojiang: > [SNIP] > -> Here task 2220 do epoll again where internally it will get/put then > start to free twice and lead to final crash. > > Here is the basic flow: > > 1. Thread A install the dma_buf_fd via dma_buf_export, the fd refcount > is 1 > > 2. Thread A add the fd to epoll list via epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_ADD) > > 3. After use the dma buf, Thread A close the fd, then here fd refcount > is 0, > and it will run __fput finally to release the file Stop, that isn't correct. The fs layer which calls dma_buf_poll() should make sure that the file can't go away until the function returns. Then inside dma_buf_poll() we add another reference to the file while installing the callback: /* Paired with fput in dma_buf_poll_cb */ get_file(dmabuf->file); This reference is only dropped after the callback is completed in dma_buf_poll_cb(): /* Paired with get_file in dma_buf_poll */ fput(dmabuf->file); So your explanation for the issue just seems to be incorrect. > > 4. Here Thread A not do epoll_ctl(EPOLL_CTL_DEL) manunally, so it > still resides in one epoll_list. > Although __fput will call eventpoll_release to remove the file from > binded epoll list, > but it has small time window where Thread B jumps in. Well if that is really the case then that would then be a bug in epoll_ctl(). > > 5. During the small window, Thread B do the poll action for > dma_buf_fd, where it will fget/fput for the file, > this means the fd refcount will be 0 -> 1 -> 0, and it will call > __fput again. > This will lead to __fput twice for the same file. > > 6. So the potenial fix is use get_file_rcu which to check if file > refcount already zero which means under free. > If so, we just return and no need to do the dma_buf_poll. Well to say it bluntly as far as I can see this suggestion is completely nonsense. When the reference to the file goes away while dma_buf_poll() is executed then that's a massive bug in the caller of that function. Regards, Christian. > > Here is the race condition: > > Thread A Thread B > dma_buf_export > fd_refcount is 1 > epoll_ctl(EPOLL_ADD) > add dma_buf_fd to epoll list > close(dma_buf_fd) > fd_refcount is 0 > __fput > dma_buf_poll > fget > fput > fd_refcount is zero again > > Thanks >

2 weeks, 5 days

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support

by T.J. Mercier

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 1:21 AM Rong Qianfeng <11065417(a)vivo.com> wrote: > > > 在 2024/4/10 0:37, T.J. Mercier 写道: > > [You don't often get email from tjmercier(a)google.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] > > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:34 AM Rong Qianfeng <11065417(a)vivo.com> wrote: > >> > >> 在 2024/4/8 15:58, Christian König 写道: > >>> Am 07.04.24 um 09:50 schrieb Rong Qianfeng: > >>>> [SNIP] > >>>>> Am 13.11.21 um 07:22 schrieb Jianqun Xu: > >>>>>> Add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support for user to sync dma-buf with > >>>>>> offset and len. > >>>>> You have not given an use case for this so it is a bit hard to > >>>>> review. And from the existing use cases I don't see why this should > >>>>> be necessary. > >>>>> > >>>>> Even worse from the existing backend implementation I don't even see > >>>>> how drivers should be able to fulfill this semantics. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please explain further, > >>>>> Christian. > >>>> Here is a practical case: > >>>> The user space can allocate a large chunk of dma-buf for > >>>> self-management, used as a shared memory pool. > >>>> Small dma-buf can be allocated from this shared memory pool and > >>>> released back to it after use, thus improving the speed of dma-buf > >>>> allocation and release. > >>>> Additionally, custom functionalities such as memory statistics and > >>>> boundary checking can be implemented in the user space. > >>>> Of course, the above-mentioned functionalities require the > >>>> implementation of a partial cache sync interface. > >>> Well that is obvious, but where is the code doing that? > >>> > >>> You can't send out code without an actual user of it. That will > >>> obviously be rejected. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Christian. > >> In fact, we have already used the user-level dma-buf memory pool in the > >> camera shooting scenario on the phone. > >> > >> From the test results, The execution time of the photo shooting > >> algorithm has been reduced from 3.8s to 3s. > >> > > For phones, the (out of tree) Android version of the system heap has a > > page pool connected to a shrinker. That allows you to skip page > > allocation without fully pinning the memory like you get when > > allocating a dma-buf that's way larger than necessary. If it's for a > > camera maybe you need physically contiguous memory, but it's also > > possible to set that up. > > > > https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/refs/heads/android14-6.1/d… > > > Thank you for the reminder. > > The page pool of the system heap can meet the needs of most scenarios, > but the camera shooting scenario is quite special. > > Why the camera shooting scenario needs to have a dma-buf memory pool in > the user-level？ > > (1) The memory demand is extremely high and time requirements are > stringent. Preallocating for this makes sense to me, whether it is individual buffers or one large one. > (2) The memory in the page pool(system heap) is easily reclaimed or used > by other apps. Yeah, by design I guess. I have seen an implementation where the page pool is proactively refilled after it has been empty for some time which would help in scenarios where the pool is often reclaimed and low/empty. You could add that in a vendor heap. > (3) High concurrent allocation and release (with deferred-free) lead to > high memory usage peaks. Hopefully this is not every frame? I saw enough complaints about the deferred free of pool pages that it hasn't been carried forward since Android 13, so this should be less of a problem on recent kernels. > Additionally, after the camera exits, the shared memory pool can be > released, with minimal impact. Why do you care about the difference here? In one case it's when the buffer refcount goes to 0 and memory is freed immediately, and in the other it's the next time reclaim runs the shrinker. I don't want to add UAPI for DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL to Android without it being in the upstream kernel. I don't think we can get that without an in-kernel user of dma_buf_begin_cpu_access_partial first, even though your use case wouldn't rely on that in-kernel usage. :\ So if you want to add this to phones for your camera app, then I think your best option is to add a vendor driver which implements this IOCTL and calls the dma_buf_begin_cpu_access_partial functions which are already exported. Best, T.J.

2 weeks, 6 days

Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support

by T.J. Mercier

On Tue, Apr 9, 2024 at 12:34 AM Rong Qianfeng <11065417(a)vivo.com> wrote: > > > 在 2024/4/8 15:58, Christian König 写道: > > Am 07.04.24 um 09:50 schrieb Rong Qianfeng: > >> [SNIP] > >>> Am 13.11.21 um 07:22 schrieb Jianqun Xu: > >>>> Add DMA_BUF_IOCTL_SYNC_PARTIAL support for user to sync dma-buf with > >>>> offset and len. > >>> > >>> You have not given an use case for this so it is a bit hard to > >>> review. And from the existing use cases I don't see why this should > >>> be necessary. > >>> > >>> Even worse from the existing backend implementation I don't even see > >>> how drivers should be able to fulfill this semantics. > >>> > >>> Please explain further, > >>> Christian. > >> Here is a practical case: > >> The user space can allocate a large chunk of dma-buf for > >> self-management, used as a shared memory pool. > >> Small dma-buf can be allocated from this shared memory pool and > >> released back to it after use, thus improving the speed of dma-buf > >> allocation and release. > >> Additionally, custom functionalities such as memory statistics and > >> boundary checking can be implemented in the user space. > >> Of course, the above-mentioned functionalities require the > >> implementation of a partial cache sync interface. > > > > Well that is obvious, but where is the code doing that? > > > > You can't send out code without an actual user of it. That will > > obviously be rejected. > > > > Regards, > > Christian. > > In fact, we have already used the user-level dma-buf memory pool in the > camera shooting scenario on the phone. > > From the test results, The execution time of the photo shooting > algorithm has been reduced from 3.8s to 3s. > For phones, the (out of tree) Android version of the system heap has a page pool connected to a shrinker. That allows you to skip page allocation without fully pinning the memory like you get when allocating a dma-buf that's way larger than necessary. If it's for a camera maybe you need physically contiguous memory, but it's also possible to set that up. https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/+/refs/heads/android14-6.1/d… > To be honest, I didn't understand your concern "...how drivers should be > able to fulfill this semantics." Can you please help explain it in more > detail? > > Thanks, > > Rong Qianfeng. > > > > >> > >> Thanks > >> Rong Qianfeng. > > >

2 weeks, 6 days

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

Linaro-mm-sig